Lewis Hamilton, Charles Leclerc and Pierre Gasly have been disqualified from the Chinese Grand Prix after their cars failed post-race technical checks.
Neither of the teams affected, Ferrari and Alpine, contested any of the stewards’ rulings. They accepted the measurements were made correctly and said the infringements were caused by “genuine errors” on their part.The stewards issued identical explanations for Leclerc and Gasly’s disqualifications after the technical delegate reported their cars weighed less than the 800kg minimum weight limit.
They noted the two cars were “weighed by the FIA technical delegate inside and outside scales with both scales showing the same result of 799kg after the customary draining of fuel and the replacement of a broken front wing.
“The calibration of both scales was confirmed and witnessed by the competitor. During the hearing there was no challenge to the FIA’s measurements which are taken to be correct and that all required procedures were performed correctly. There are no mitigating circumstances and that the team[s] confirmed that it was a genuine error by them.
“The stewards determine that article 4.1 of the FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations has been breached and therefore the standard penalty of a disqualification needs to be applied for such [infringements].”
Hamilton was disqualified because his plank assembly was found to be beneath the minimum thickness of nine millimetres.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“The plank assembly of car 44 [Hamilton] was measured and found to be 8.6mm (LHS), 8.6mm (car centerline) and 8.5mm (RHS),” the stewards noted. “This is below the minimum thickness of 9mm specified under Article 3.5.9 of the Technical Regulations.
“During the hearing the team representative confirmed that the measurement is correct and that all required procedures were performed correctly. The team also acknowledged that there were no mitigating circumstances and that it was a genuine error by the team.
“The stewards determine that Article 3.5.9 of the FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations has been breached and therefore the standard penalty of a disqualification needs to be applied for such an infringement.”
The trio of disqualifications have caused significant changes to the race’s original finishing order.
Esteban Ocon moves up two places to finish fifth, and therefore scores Haas’s best result since the 2022 Bahrain Grand Prix. Behind him Andrea Kimi Antonelli, Alexander Albon and Oliver Bearman all move up two places in the standings.
Two drivers who did not originally finish in the top 10 have claimed points. Lance Stroll has moved up to ninth and Carlos Sainz Jnr takes the final point in 10th.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Ferrari explained why their cars failed the checks in a statement. “Charles was on a one-stop strategy today and this meant his tyre wear was very high, causing the car to be underweight,” the team said.
“With regard to Lewis’ skid wear, we misjudged the consumption by a small margin.”
The team added: “There was no intention to gain any advantage. We will learn from what happened today and make sure we don’t make the same mistakes again.
“Clearly it’s not the way we wanted to end our Chinese GP weekend, neither for ourselves, nor for our fans whose support for us is unwavering.”
Ferrari’s double disqualification means they fall from one point behind Red Bull to 19 adrift, and tied with Williams for fourth in the standings. Mercedes cut four points out of McLaren’s constructors’ championship lead, reducing it to 21.
The disqualifications only affect the results of the grand prix, not the sprint race, which Hamilton won.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
For the Ferrari drivers, this is their second post-race disqualification due to a technical infringement in 18 months. Both were disqualified at the United States Grand Prix in 2023, when Hamilton drove for Mercedes, for excessive plank wear.
Updated: 2025 Chinese Grand Prix race result and championship points
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
2025 Chinese Grand Prix
- Red Bull reassure Verstappen over ‘when we’ll have a winning car again’ in meeting
- Mercedes explain impact of Antonelli’s floor damage on his Chinese GP performance
- “I gave a lot of lap time away in that first stint”: Verstappen’s full Chinese GP radio
- Stats: Chinese Grand Prix saw most disqualifications in an F1 race for 21 years
- Even the best driver on the grid needs a team mate to push them – Norris
Jere (@jerejj)
23rd March 2025, 11:27
As was inevitable. Ferrari definitely takes a hit, but Alpine at least didn’t lose a single point since Gasly had already finished outside the top 10 anyway.
d0senbrot (@d0senbrot)
23rd March 2025, 11:32
With Leclerc (and Hamilton) disqualified he would be 10th (or 9th).
Jere (@jerejj)
23rd March 2025, 11:50
Yeah, but that’s irrelevant because he was going to get disqualified simultaneously with Leclerc rather than separately later.
Therefore, Sainz inherited P10 in the end.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
23rd March 2025, 12:53
That might beat Logan Sargeant’s record of the worst ever finish to score points for Williams!
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
23rd March 2025, 14:02
Yes, not great to score only cause 3 cars get disqualified, since it’s obvious said cars didn’t gain enough of an advantage to end up ahead.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
24th March 2025, 5:07
It would be quite relevant has he not been disqualified.
Scalextric (@scalextric)
23rd March 2025, 11:39
I’ve used this argument with other regulators:
8.6 and 8.5 round to 9 using the level of precision quoted. If it was quoted at 9.0 in the regulations, that’s a different matter.
Drop Saudi
23rd March 2025, 11:49
If it ain’t 9, it doesn’t pass.
tielemst
23rd March 2025, 11:55
And it’s false. 9 is 9, nowhere in the regulations is it stated that you can round it from 9.5 up. If my train leaves at 12.00 and I’m 29 seconds late, I’m not going to get a refund using that logic.
LosD (@losd)
23rd March 2025, 12:05
tielemst, it’s about how you _should_ write numbers: 9 essentially means a precision of 8.5-9.5, 9.0 means 8.95-9.05, 9.00 means 8.995-9.005 and so on.
Buuuuuut it’s mostly used the other way round. You did some measurements, and estimate how precise they are. E.g. if you’re using calipers vs a micrometer, or how many people in a survey. If it is a rule, and e.g. states “above 9”, it probably means sharply above.
drmouse (@drmouse)
24th March 2025, 7:59
It depends on context, though.
In a rule which says a part must be 9mm thick, then without further clarification or would mean 8.5 <= t < 9.5.
If it says "no less than 9mm", then 8.9999999999999999mm is too little.
i luv chicken
23rd March 2025, 14:08
Only works, if the plank was made of money ( and some people say that is what the cars are), and you rounded up the measurements, to the nearest dollar. I’m not a fan of going to bed, waking up, and finding out that I had just wasted a whole night, on a completely different result.
AlanD
23rd March 2025, 15:34
Tielemst, the train analogy is a good one. In that example, it is also true that if the railway’s clock is 29 seconds fast, you still don’t get a refund. The rule is that the train leaves at 12:00 on their measuring device, and there is no room for argument. When the train leaves is not something the passenger can control.
SteveP
24th March 2025, 8:42
If your train leaves at 12:00, and you arrive 29 seconds before, you ain’t getting on…
Rules are rules, and they close the doors 30 seconds before departure (actually 30-40 seconds at some stations)
hunocsi (@hunocsi)
23rd March 2025, 12:20
The technical regulations say
I assume giving no ± values means there is no tolerance.
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2025, 12:59
Exactly, @hunosci. The FIA are deliberate in these matters. There’s a fixed minimum of “plank” remaining (although if yo were a few hundreds or thousands of a mm below that it might be below the tolerance of the measuring equipment used).
DaveW (@dmw)
23rd March 2025, 14:43
I get your point that the significant digits in the regulation implies a tolerance. I don’t know if this is an ISO consistent approach. But I think an over 5 percent tolerance would be pretty big.
AlanD
23rd March 2025, 15:11
Scalextric, you make a good point, but I suspect the answer in this case is that it is a minimum of 9mm as measured on the FIA measuring device, regrdless of the precision of that device. If that device has, say, four decimal places of precision then 8.9999 is still less than 9mm as far as that measureent is concerned. From Ferrari’s point of view, if they were predicting the amount of wear, then the estimate and tolerance of their estimate needs to lie within 9mm. i.e. if they think they can predict to 0.1mm, then they should aim for 8.9 +/- 0.1 to be sure of remaining legal.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:15
@scalextric The success of such an argument typically depends on the sensitivity of the equipment and regulations. Both have been relevant in the past.
In the 1950s (when the regulations first had weight limits), being out by a single gram would not have been a problem. This is because the weighing scales to weigh cars that were potentially over 1 ton didn’t measure that accurately. It is possible (though not certain) that being up to 499 g underweight would have been possible.
There have also been times when certain measurements have had tolerances. While F1 has not, to my knowledge, ever done this for weight, is has done it for a variety of lengths, including the notorious one about Ferrari’s bargeboards being within tolerance but exceeding the official measurement back in Malaysia 1999.
Nowadays, with weighing scales for cars being sensitive to less than a gram (such that the to-the-gram number can be assumed accurate), and F1 weight regulations permitting no official margin of error, arguing by equipment accuracy would only work if there was a doubt about the machine itself.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
23rd March 2025, 11:40
Ferrari clown meme is back on the menu boys.
Well, at least it happened in a race where they had mediocre performance and results anyway. If this had taken away a win or a podium, it really would have hurt. Could still be significant in the likely constructors battle for P2 at the end of the season though.
harsha vardhan
23rd March 2025, 18:33
That’s even more worrying, to have car ride height lower than what it should be and also with mediocre pace
Image the pace of the car was higher from ground even worse pace
Applebook
23rd March 2025, 19:45
Apparently, Mattia didn’t take the entire circus with him when he got canned.
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
23rd March 2025, 11:42
Shame – I thought all three drivers worked well today.
Doggy
23rd March 2025, 13:19
I’m sorry, but both Ferrari should have been finished 1 position ahead of were they were.
I agree, it’s a shame that they got disqualified. I don’t want that to ever happen to anyone or any team. But their performance was bang average today.
MG1982 (@mg1982)
23rd March 2025, 11:46
Oh boy! The picture cleared more after this GP, Ferrari looking like 4th best car indeed… now getting DSQ from a mediocre race. Only a significant&working update of the car a la McLaren might save them from a forgetable season. Hopefully HAM can help them somehow.
kpcart
23rd March 2025, 13:15
And they showed better pace than Australia, and they got a sprint pole and a sprint race win. But you be you.
Doggy
23rd March 2025, 13:25
The pecking order based on what happened in the race is:
McLaren (clear above the rest by 0.2) , then Mercs, the Ferrari (had Charles not hit Hamilton, he would have finish closer to Russel, if not ahead), and then RBR (only had decent pace, similar to mercs and slower than McLaren, in the last third of the race)
Edvaldo
23rd March 2025, 19:25
I don’t think Charles had the pace. He was going for a two-stopper, then changed for 1 stop and once he did that, Russell disappeared from his sight and Max closed in fast.
He was pushing the tyres harder than the others, of course he looked fast.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
24th March 2025, 13:58
That was after the front wing got damaged. The tyre wear might have held up otherwise (if not necessarily the pace).
Chris (@austin-healey)
23rd March 2025, 11:58
Sad for both men.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:17
There’s 3 drivers involved
An Sionnach
23rd March 2025, 12:00
Bad luck for Lewis. 0.5mm isn’t much, but those are the rules.
bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
23rd March 2025, 12:22
Yeah, it must be a naff to travel to China, work hard all weekend, drive for nearly two hours and it’s all for nothing and the points are wiped. I doubt 0.5mm gave any performance advantage. But like you say, rules are rules. To lose it all for 0.5mm must be little frustrating.
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2025, 13:01
At least Hamilton got a sprint pole and win out of the weekend, and a lot more experience of how this team works!
bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
23rd March 2025, 13:16
In Italian it’s ‘millimetro’. You can’t even blame the language barrier really.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:18
@bernasaurus I think it’s more to do with attitudes, approaches and figuring out the finer details, rather than the terminology for vocabulary Lewis probably figured out on Day 1 of his Italian classes.
David BR (@david-br)
23rd March 2025, 13:21
@bascb Including a dubious switch around of the drivers with Leclerc clearly never having any chance of actually passing Russell and a baffling extra pit stop for Lewis that seemed to hinder rather than help.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
23rd March 2025, 13:33
I think that they pitted Hamilton in an effort to split their strategies because that saw that Verstappen was catching up to them.
David BR (@david-br)
23rd March 2025, 13:48
Only Hamilton never had a chance of catching Verstappen on the same hard tyre, so he was gone anyhow. I thought it was more a convenience to avoid any issues when Leclerc failed to pass Russell and, who knows, Hamilton may have ended up closer again by the end of the race and re-swapping may have become an issue. None of which matters after the disqualification of course. But it was a lesson in how Ferrari respond quickly to the driver behind claiming to be faster and radio pushing to be let past.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
23rd March 2025, 15:58
He could have cought Verstappen if the latter had run out of tire.
He would not have been able to defend against him anyway so they had nothing to lose.
Before the pit stop Hamilton had started dropping further from Leclerc so having to reswap if he had stayed out was very unlikely.
Actually, it was the alternative strategy that got Hamilton so close to Leclerc in the end.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:20
@david-br Leclerc did have a chance of catching Russell and perhaps pressuring him into using too much tyre in defence (there was no way a standard-issue overtake was on, but one does not win lotteries without buying tickets). Unfortunately he wore out his own tyres too close to the end of the race, and he ended up where he would have been had he not tried (albeit one place ahead of if the swap had not been done).
hunocsi (@hunocsi)
24th March 2025, 14:11
You say dubious, but apparently Hamilton initiated the switch. And they had nothing to lose with the extra stop, Hamilton would have been caught by Verstappen and with clear air behind, they could try and see if the two stop would pay off, ending in a similar position to Leclerc where he was before the stop.
An Sionnach
23rd March 2025, 13:55
I don’t understand how we went from the class of the field in how he was driving the lap to struggling. This isn’t just limited to Lewis. Hopefully this kind of thing will be gone next year and aerodynamicists may be spared more blushes. Is Leclerc’s chewed-up wing seemingly making little difference another example of how little is understood about these ground effect cars?
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
23rd March 2025, 14:08
It’s happened many times that a driver loses a part of the front wing and still performs normally, verstappen was pulling away from vettel in what I believe was spain 2018 despite said part missing, in cars that were otherwise similar on pace.
DaveW (@dmw)
23rd March 2025, 14:45
They ruined the set up so badly overnight that the loss for front wing balanced Leclercs car and sent Hamilton backwards.
El Chinero Tellier
23rd March 2025, 16:52
lewis beat lawson
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:21
Too much understeer (with the exact damage pattern Leclerc had taking some understeer off).
An Sionnach
23rd March 2025, 13:58
George might describe it as a pain in the b u m? I’m not sure what Lewis might say. He must be tired of stupid questions, or answers that get made into a big deal just because he’s always a big story.
Applebook
23rd March 2025, 19:44
Don’t feel too bad for Hamilton. He still got paid well and flew privately on his carbon neutral jet.
SteveP
24th March 2025, 8:54
The jet he sold a few years back?
AlanD
23rd March 2025, 15:30
“0.5mm isn’t much”
Well, it is if you are talking about a plank that starts at 10mm and must not wear below 9mm. That’s 50% more wear than is allowed under the rules, which is definitely much.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
23rd March 2025, 12:16
Wasn’t a great weekend for Ferrari in the end. One car underweight, one too close to the ground, and to top it off the car with the damaged wing seemed to have better performance.
AlanD
23rd March 2025, 15:20
BLS, the damaged wing was fairly minor and asymmetric, and it might be that the wing was flexing closer to the ground on that side and giving more downforce on that side. I wondered how the wing flex rules apply in this situation, but since the car was disqualified anyway, the point remained moot. Hamilton’s car running too low might have been giving an advantage in the corners, but equally it could have been dragging on the straights and eating into top speed. Either way, it was a clear breech of the rules and annoying.
SteveP
24th March 2025, 8:57
The benefit of removing the drag production flap…
Alesici
23rd March 2025, 12:25
Did the FIA take the opportunity to specifically inform the Drive to Survive editors that this has actually happened?
john (@spactus)
23rd March 2025, 12:29
Dont you Love how Rules are Rules unless its AD21 where multiple Rules were blantly broken ,and people are like well bla bla bla
XM (@xmf1)
23rd March 2025, 13:40
Wait, so you want FIA to keep bending or breaking their own rules?
Doh
23rd March 2025, 15:02
What do you think? Do you really not know the answer to that question?
Sounds like it’s a point being made that rules are rules, but when they were broken (ad21) almost everyone was okay with it, or at least didn’t say much against it.
Almost everyone being team bosses, drivers media fans, FIA and FOM.
It’s one thing for rules to be broken. But for it to be so widely accepted by everyone, and then frankly so easily moved on from, was downright bizarre.
It’s reeks of a rotten “sport” where even the most basic foundational concepts in sports (rules) aren’t stood up for by the vast majority of all involved.
Should all still be ashamed of that. And there’s is no doubt the reactions would have been much different had it been the other way around.
I understand it better now though, it’s because F1 isn’t a sport, in fact it’s not even really racing.
It’s one thing for something like that to happen (ad21) but then for the vast majority to just so easily brush past it and move on is a whole different ugly. The teams bosses the drivers the fans the media the ex drivers and pundits and commentators the FIA and FOM.
It reeks of a rotten sport and weak people that don’t have it in them to stand up and speak for one the most basic foundational elementas of sport.. rules!
It’s also crazy to think that the reaction would have been very different had it happened the other way around. That’s a fact that also can’t be ignored.
Most if all it’s sad that I can’t let go of it as much as I’ve tried. And this is now at least my 4th attempt. I guess I’m just not okay with letting that kind of stuff slide as most people in this sport are.
Its not as if anything was even really done about it either. Or explained… All they did was have masi sign and NDA then fire him lol.
Btw even with the mess of the previous race and Max’s well over the like driving in Brazil I went into the last race thinking I wouldn’t mind if max wins it’ll be a nice change he does deserve it and he’s a good drivers. So don’t be thinking it bias. It’s just reality.
And I can’t help but think that part of reality is that F1 is a rotten sport l and that goes for the majority involved in it. A heck of a lot of hypocrisy across the board.
Looking forward I’d like to see someone start a rival series to F1 with faster cars and equal cars. It would be great to see this hypothetical series run F1 into the mud. If that happens then great otherwise I’m plenty happy watching indycar the pinnacle of motorSPORTS and motorRACING!
Ferdi
24th March 2025, 7:05
I understand your emotion. The fundamental thing about AD21 was however that the whole season was rigged, not jus the last race. It was a disgrace -as you so correctly put it ‘F1 isnt a sport’- and Lewis never ever in a million years should have been on equal points going into that last race (flexwing gate, in season tire compound change, pit stop lobby, Silverstone’s lenient penalty, team boss that has diner with race director, bowling Bottas in Hungary). The season should have been wrapped up in Max’ favour before Brasil. So what happened after the start in AD, really isnt that interesting but especially not relevant to a lot of people, just the ones cheering for the other guy.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:23
@xmf1 Keeping the regulations would require Hamilton to be declared champion of 2021 (and 2023, thanks to the regulation breach of Red Bull’s budget being excused in order for anything it did on track that race to be relevant in the first place), Leclerc to be declared champion of 2022, Norris to be declared champion of 2024 and someone not in a Red Bull to be 2025 world champion.
I don’t think that was what you meant.
SteveP
24th March 2025, 9:11
@alianora-la-canta
As appealing as the re-documentation all sounds, nah.
I’ll take the simpler, and easier version – cancel 2021 and insert a note that states what Masi did was, in the worst way possible, totally wrong.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
24th March 2025, 13:59
SteveP, that simply preserves the injustice and involves lying about the consequences of what happened, by pretending that Masi was the only member of the FIA breaking regulations (when it was clearly more people than that).
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
23rd March 2025, 12:48
They might as well have hit each other at turn 2 and got it over with…
It happens, move on – but of course we won’t be allowed to – here comes 2 weeks of shouty yapping noise, and stupid irrelevant questions stinking up the press conferences and TV broadcasts from Suzuka.
David BR (@david-br)
23rd March 2025, 13:50
@bullfrog Hamilton did the right thing, same as he did at the sprint start. I’m liking it. None of the cautious ‘after you’ Hamilton with seen too much of in recent years, back to legitimate but decisive/aggressive racing.
bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
23rd March 2025, 12:50
Here’s one for Monday morning; has a team ever had both cars disqualified but for different technical infringements? I can’t think of any, but usually someone comes up with better answer. That it’s Ferrari, is well Ferrari.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
23rd March 2025, 14:16
The closest I can find is Australia 2002, where both Arrows cars were disqualified for different reasons: Heinz-Harald Frentzen for skipping the red light at the end of the pit lane, and Enrique Bernoldi for changing to the spare car too late. Neither was a technical infringement though – Ferrari might have found another way to make history today!
bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
23rd March 2025, 17:18
Wow @red-andy if this was high school I’d be copying off you for sure!
SteveP
24th March 2025, 9:16
I’m going to assume they set up both cars the same, and that Leclerc had excess plank/skid block wear, but since the weighing occurs first they stopped checking when a slam-dunk DQ reason (underweight) for Lerclerc came up.
MikePrice
23rd March 2025, 13:11
Bizarre. Is ferrari and alpine resorting to buying aliexpress precision equipment to save on the budget cap?
AlanD
23rd March 2025, 16:03
Mike, these are not down to equipent precision. In LeClerc’s case, I think everyone was anticipating a two stop race and Ferrari hadn’t accounted for possible increased tyre weight loss by running a one stopper. They’d left themselves no margin for variations. In Hamilton’s case, again, there is no suggestion that Ferrari measured anything incorrectly, only that the set up they changed to generated much more plank wear than they anticipated. Maybe they put too much wing on the car, maybe they just lowered the suspension too much, whatever it was, it was a judgement error or a huan error in set up rather than equipment failure.
MikePrice
24th March 2025, 1:33
It was a joke.
SteveP
24th March 2025, 9:18
Clever people learn from other people’s mistakes (Russell, Spa 2024), as well as their own, others do their own thing.
kpcart
23rd March 2025, 13:12
I wonder if every team got scrutinised if others would have been found to be in breach?
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
23rd March 2025, 14:13
I guess it’s likely, as someone said before when stuff like this happens, they should check everyone.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
23rd March 2025, 19:10
All classified cars are weighed. Also additional checks are done to all cars that earned points and to some more at random.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:26
kpcart The top 3 usually get scrutineered in as much detail as the randomly-selected 3 (which I’m going to assume were these 3), so we can be confident that the McLarens and Russell’s paces were legitimate at least.
SteveP
24th March 2025, 9:27
You missed the quote marks around “randomly-selected”
Past experience suggests the process is somewhat less than random
Kribana (@krichelle)
23rd March 2025, 13:19
I am guessing Ferrari has tried to push the ride height limit for this race since it has been a sprint weekend, similar to what Mercedes tried in USA 2024. But their car would not take it. This will alarm Ferrari because this track has a smooth surface. They will need to make a lot of adjustments when they come to tracks that have a lot of kerbs. Maybe that was the reason they were telling Leclerc to avoid the kerb at turn 2.
MichaelN
23rd March 2025, 13:45
Embarrassing. It’s be one thing is they were quick, but this is just bad.
I want to like Vasseur. He says a lot of good things. But the results just aren’t there.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
23rd March 2025, 13:47
Ferrari being disqualified for 2 different reasons is bad enough, but to be disqualified for plank wear twice in 18 months is unforgivable for a team fighting for titles.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
23rd March 2025, 14:15
Well, being DQ’d twice in a similar time frame isn’t limited to ferrari, think about hamilton in austin 2023 and then russell in spa 2024, obviously not years where merc was very competitive, but still one of the best teams in recent history.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
23rd March 2025, 14:37
Yeah true. Ferrari this year are probably paying £50m for drivers and are 61 points off in the constructors and 35 in the drivers and we’re not even in April yet. In a year where they’d expect to fight for both titles, they’re putting themselves under big pressure very early on.
MichaelN
23rd March 2025, 15:59
You’re very right, of course. I’m seeing a lot of positive spin from my fellow Ferrari fans online, but let’s be real; they’re losing points by the boatload. It’s just two races and they’re already way behind.
Even if you want to be super positive and say they have the 2nd best car, what good is that if they can’t qualify up front, have bad strategies, hit each other at the start, go backwards on setup, and then to top it off get disqualified.
Very disappointing.
Sergey Martyn
23rd March 2025, 14:03
The dull race suddenly became interesting after the finish!
Mr A
23rd March 2025, 14:03
I actually expected LEC to be disqualified, but I thought it would be for having a flexing front wing for the whole race. I find it an interesting precedent if you can race on a damaged, flexing wing for the whole GP without penalisation.
Weird.
S Arkazam
23rd March 2025, 14:39
Teams are now working on flex wings which will lose its endplates when merely looked at.
And of course developing similar solutions for the main wing.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd March 2025, 20:27
It’s not really a precedent, because if the scrutineering fail for weight happened in the initial check, there’s no reason to bother with more detailed checks like flex tests (unless they were done first).
Mr A
23rd March 2025, 23:28
I see what you mean.
However, before the weight issue arose Ferrari seemed confident that it was perfectly fine to race with a flexing rear wing, which also makes me think that the stewards thought this was OK too.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
23rd March 2025, 14:18
Have to say I don’t really like watching a race, seeing the results, podium ceremony, etc., no commentator says anything, then open this website to check what people have to say and find out that 3 drivers are no longer in the points for very minor technical infringiment, as in watching the race is not enough to know the results, post-race stuff can always happen.
In this particular case, at least, none of the disqualified people were protagonists of the race or of the title, which I would say is between mclarens, verstappen and russell, at best, with russell probably dropping out of contention realistically soon.
sam
23rd March 2025, 18:14
This is why it is not worth getting up in the middle of the night to watch their races.
Mark in Florida
23rd March 2025, 15:16
Why didn’t the Ferrari drivers get enough pickup on their tires after the race? Your car will gain a considerable amount of weight to put you over the limit. If Charles and Lewis didn’t bother to drive offline then that’s somewhat their fault as well.
AlanD
23rd March 2025, 15:26
Mark, I don’t think there is as much rubber discarded onto the circuit these days. There was a time when you could see the racing line as a valley through a mass of rubber marbles, but you just don’t see that any more. Whether the rubber is there or not, this is a pitwall error rather than a driver error. The pitwall knows how much, if any, pickup weight a car can expect to find and they will have factored it in to their calculations.
Davethechicken
23rd March 2025, 16:47
Indeed Alan,
You used to be able to pick up huge lumps of it, soft and malleable like plasticine, after the races. When you used to be allowed onto the track.
JeroenJ
23rd March 2025, 19:08
I don’t think picking up rubber would have magically fixed the plank wear on Lewis’s car.
I luv chicken
23rd March 2025, 22:09
Flavio would have a system where the skid blocks would extend, after the race, to ensure them being legal
SteveP
24th March 2025, 9:33
Sounds similar to what Ferrari actually did the other year (2022 season??) – one of the more well known items Mattia created/allowed
Johnß
23rd March 2025, 19:16
The tires have changed. They are not like the old tires that scrub off rubber and get hot and sticky. They are more like modern car tires that just scrub off and turn to dust. Imho
Mooa42
24th March 2025, 3:39
I did notice one of the McLarens going off the road on the cool down lap, I assumed it was to pick up dirt and rocks given the lack of marbles.
SteveP
23rd March 2025, 15:30
Is it an appropriate time to quote the current status of the WCC?
McLaren
Mercedes
Max
Ferrari / Williams
…
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
23rd March 2025, 16:55
I think the primary concern is the change in setup of the car for Lewis – the disqualifications were tiny and unlucky but will be avoided.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
23rd March 2025, 19:17
The car is inferior to the competition so they have to take risks.
Still, having both cars disqualified for different reasons is pathetic.
Henrik Møller Jørgensen
23rd March 2025, 17:14
Ferrari’s double disqualification means they [are] tied with Williams for fourth.
No, that was
(checks list again)
No, that was not on my list of expected outcome of F1 2025 so far.
Win7Golf (@win7golf)
23rd March 2025, 18:56
Hamilton has to break some heads at Ferrari…
This is not a professional team…
Too many errors…
In the last years, they have had a good car and lost a lot of points with stupid errors…
JMDan (@danmar)
23rd March 2025, 19:48
Ferrari has forgotten how to win championships.
Leo B
23rd March 2025, 20:01
Last champion was Kimi nearly 20 yrs ago.
Leo B
23rd March 2025, 19:59
Is Lewis’s sprint win safe? Same plank used there also or no?
Jonathan Parkin
23rd March 2025, 21:13
Yes as his disqualification is for the race only not the sprint session. They usually change the plank regularly to avoid a dq
Dale
23rd March 2025, 21:17
So comical to see all the Hammifans suddenly fiercely up in arms about a Ferrari DQ, whereas as recently as 2023 they were crying for Ferrari to be DQ’s for being red.
MacLeod (@macleod)
24th March 2025, 7:56
To shoot Ferrari down is a bit to fast. Plankwear is because of only 1 FP so when they had a good result (sprint) they probaly kept that but nobody drove the hard tyre so the wear was not to see. Too light is just fuel error when they changed Charles car the car used too much due setup changes… and they couldn’t use a FP to verify the setup ….
SteveP
24th March 2025, 9:41
No.
The weight of the car/driver package is a dry weight.
i.e. The weight is done first with fuel, then repeated after the fuel is drained.
Reference all the chat when Russell was underweight before fuel was drained at Spa 2024 and grossly underweight when the official dry weight was done.
LC was DQ’d on the first check in the sequence that FIA do, he quite likely would have been DQ’d for plank wear if the weight hadn’t already given them a reason for a DQ